Egarg Idaho Under DOE Contract No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
r,i If NUFlEGICR-4375 EGG-2415 .I o National E Operated by the U.S. De Steven R. Adams October 1985 ared for the uclear R atory Commission EGarG Idaho Under DOE Contract No. DE- 6t' ;s ~~~~ DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. DISCLAIMER N UR EGlCR-4375 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their EGG-2415 employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- Distribution Category: R1, R 7 bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or 7--- process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views NUREG/CR--Q 3 75 and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. TI86 004392 THEORY, DESIGN, AND OPERATION OF LIQIJID METAL FAST BREEDER REACTORS, INCLUDING OPERATIONAL HEALTH PHYSICS Steven R. Adams Published October 1985 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc. Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Alan K. Roecklein NRC Project Manager . Prepared for the Division of Facility Operations Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under Contract No. DE-AC07-761D01570 FIN No. A6314 ~~~~~~~~~j~18 II Oi 'if25 Gu"3fE3ii IS ~~~ ABSTRACT A comprehensive evaluation was conducted of the radiation protection practices and programs at prototype LMFBRs with long operational experience. Installations evaluated were the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), Richland, Washington; Experimen- tal Breeder Reactor I1 (EBR-11) Idaho Falls, Idaho; Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) Dounreay, Scotland; Phenix, Marcoule, France; and Kompakte Natriumgekuhlte Kernreak Toranlange (KNK II), Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany. The evalua- tion included external and internal exposure control, respiratory protection proce- dures, radiation surveillance practices, radioactive waste management, and engineering controls for confining radiation contamination. The theory, design, and operating experience at LMFBRs is described. Aspects of LMFBR health physics different from the LWR experience in the United States are identified. Suggestions are made for modifications to the NRC Standard Review Plan based on the differences. FIN No. A6314-Occupational HP at LMFBRs 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A study funded by the Nuclear Regulatory Com- core is greater in an LMFBR than in ai? LWR. mission (NRC) was conducted to identify and Operational health physics experience at L MFBRs describe the differences between Light Water Reac- with radiation and contamination control has been tor (LWR) and Liquid Metal Fast Breeder highly satisfactory. Personnel exposure are very low (LMFBR) health physics programs. The NRC will in comparison to LWRs. use the information to update the Standard Review Plan. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Gaseous radionuclides present in LMFBR efflu- Standard Review Plan (SRP) is prepared for the ents are Ne-23, Ar-39, Ar-41, noble gases, and trit- guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula- ium. The only gaseous radionuclide produced in tion’s staff responsible for review of applications to LMFBRs that exceeds that of an LWR at compara- construct and operate nuclear power plants. The ble thermal power is tritium. Comparison c’f liquid SRP provides the NRC review staff sufficient radioactive waste produced at LMFBRs with that information to evaluate the applications to ensure produced at LWRs shows that the volume and that the nuclear power plant can be constructed activity released at LMFBRs to be orders of magni- and operated without undue risk to the health and tude smaller. However, solid waste disposal at safety of the public. LMFBRs will require more research and develop- ment for converting contaminated sodium to inert In a coordinated work effort with Argonne compounds suitable for disposal. National Laboratory-West (ANL-W) in 1983, health physics programs at operating LMFBR facil- Methods used for monitoring liquid and gaseous ities in the United States, Scotland, France, and the effluents at LMFBRs were not found to be different Federal Republic of Germany were evaluated. An than at LWRs. Process monitoring of sodium extensive literature review was also made concern- purity, measuring and recording of radioactive con- ing the theory, design, and operating experience at centrations in plant sodium, and the use of cold past and present LMFBRs. traps for maintaining control of sodium impurities in the liquid coolant system were found to be very The health physics evaluation included defining different from the analogous LWR water chemistry the radiological source terms at LMFBRs and char- technology. The potential role of cold trapping for acterizing them qualitatively and quantitatively removing radioactive products from the coolant of throughout the reactor systems. Investigated were LMFBRs has not been fully explored. A systematic radiation surveillance or monitoring methods, study of cold trapping performance in operating radiation protection practices and programs deal- reactors is highly desirable. ing with external and internal exposure control, waste management, respiratory protection proce- dures, and engineering controls for confining radi- Sections of the NRC Standard Review Plan ation and contamination. Elements of the health (NUREG-0800) pertaining to occupational health physics programs unique to LMFBRs have been physics will require substantial modification before identified. they can be applied to LMFBRs. The modifications are owing mainly to the use of sodium coolant. The primary differences in the operational health Regulatory Guides 1.8, 1.33, 8.8, 1.112, 8.2, and physics programs at LMFBRs are principally owing 8.10 will require changes in order to be applicable to the use of sodium as a coolant. Use of sodium to LMFBRs. Other acceptance criteria used in the introduces unique radiological source terms, Na-24 Standard Review Plan that will have to be modified and Na-22. Sodium also presents distinct chal- for use in licensing LMFBRs are NURECi-0718, lenges in the handling of radioactive waste and in -0737, -0103, -0123, and -0212. doing maintenance on sodium-wetted equipment. Personnel at LMFBRs require training in sodium Future research and development needs for technology to meet the special challenges. Since the LMFBRs are related to health physics instrumenta- power density is higher in an LMFBR than in an tion, secondary containment studies, radiological LWR, and the neutrons in an LMFBR are not source term kinetics in containment and the envi- slowed down to thermal energies by the sodium, the ronment, and the use of probabilistic risk assess- potential for high energy neutron leakage from the ment for dose optimization. ... 111 Appendix A discusses in depth the theory, design. The review of operational experience design, and operating experience of LMFBRs. It includes the reactor features and operating history discusses the physics of breeding, major design of early experimental LMFBRs, early power and objectives, and mechanical and thermal systems test reactors, and the prototype reactors. iv CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................... ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... .............................................................. 111 THE BREEDER REACTOR AND NUCLEAR POWER .................................... 1 RADIATION PROTECTION AT LIQUID METAL FAST BREEDER REACTOR PLANTS ...... 2 Operational Health Physics Program Responsibilities ...................................... 2 ALARAPrograms ................................................................. 2 Shielding ........................................................................... 10 Radiological Source Terms .......................................................... 14 Ventilation .......................................................................... 18 Design Objectives .................................................................. 18 SourceTerms ..................................................................... 19 Radioactive Waste Management .......................................................